Forced Chemotherapy

This is a discussion on Forced Chemotherapy within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; What do y'all think about this mess?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51219...

U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment: " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ..." Invoilable, IMO. Specifically spelled out to indicate what governmental bureaucrats cannot do. A bureaucrat's misguided belief that he/she has the right to usurp one of the most fundamental rights of control a person has is intolerable. The bureaucrats can rot.

On another forum, someone posted that, in his case, his doctors had only given him a 25% or 50% chance of survival--the poster thought 25%. The poster did not, however, give any link to that information, and I haven't seen that figure in any of the links I've seen.

Back in the mid-1980s my late Mother was diagnosed with brain cancer and told that post-op the mortality rate was 50% within 6 months.

We did some experimental chemo, that we were told might improve longevity. I remember my Mother telling me that if she knew what she'd be going thru with the chemo she would have never done it, even knowing what that meant in longevity. She lasted 15 months post-op despite all efforts, with the last six months being semi-comatose.

On the other hand, I know many that have fought and won against things like breast cancer. Their chemo varied from no bad side effects to some really bad nausea, etc. each treatment.

I'm all for informed consent and respecting the wishes of the patient if at all possible (lucid, able to make and understand rational decisions, etc.) without "the law" forcing someone to be strapped to a gurney and administered meds against their wishes.

If the patient is unable to make rational decisions for themselves, then someone must step in to do it, but the courts would be my last choice. The courts' track record for deciding medical treatment has been much less than stellar in the past number of years!

From that standpoint, the patient is not able to give consent in a legally binding manner. If there is a strong argument that the parents are not acting in the child's best interests, then there may be a compelling enough reason for the Court to act.

The "boy" is 16 years old and is in control of his faculties. He's already tried chemo and it did'nt work. Apparently his experience with chemo the last time brought him to the conclusion that he'd rather die than go through it again. I can blame niether him or his parents for their choice. The State has no business meddling in these matters. What's next? Are they going to force all young children to be implanted with GPS microchips because it's for their own good. This is a dangerous precident being set. When the state get's to mandate what medical procedures are done to children despite the childs and parents wishes

To me, this is a conundrum of two wrongs. The courts would probably be wrong to take the child. OTOH, the parents are wrong for ignoring proven medical treatment with a high success rate and continuing down some herbal voodoo path they found on the Internet (hey, if it is on the Internet, it must be true and waaaay better than the conventional way...).